That’s what leveling is, really, power inflation. It’s a large part of why I advocate for level-less, cap-less systems for RPGs, the only benefit to the grind is the occasional reward. It’s much easier to tune for dangerous encounters and the like with a more static system, and can be much more satisfying. Either MMOs…

I’d say that streamers and the like should receive more extreme punishments, because the act of streaming the action makes it appear as if the activity is okay to those watching.

Let’s go down the list.

This has been her story arc since Wrath, actually. If you look back, you can see every step that’s led up to this point. Becoming the leader of the Horde was part of the endgame, not the start of things, and the war with the Alliance was just an excuse to kill as many of the Alliance and Horde as possible. Garrosh…

I think you’re forgetting why things were simplified so much: people asked for it. Remember, the game has been around for fifteen years, and people grew older during that time. The original bingers were in school, for the most part, and as time becomes more scarce with age, a smoother, more streamlined experience is…

If you’re saying no, they wouldn’t have, you, sir, are making judgements based on information you don’t have. You have no actual information whether China’s policies have any sway inside Blizzard, you only have the assumption that they do based on the biases of yourself and others.

Their BlizzCon bans could end just in time for the next BlizzCon! Which, admittedly, would be a pretty good way for Blizz to take the piss out of themselves after this whole mess.

That’s actually pretty fair.

You mean the people who reiterated the statement with the specific aim of getting banned to show whether the ban was being applied evenly, and were satisfied with the result when they received the same ban?

He called for secession and revolution, which are about as political of stances as you can get. Was the punishment extreme? Of course it was. That’s why it was toned down. It was still outlined as such in the contract he signed, and he was well aware of the cost and willing to pay it.

This is especially ironic considering that the position that political speech should be protected on private platforms is the argument the MAGA crowd have been making for over three years about Twitter. That’s right, your position is that held by white supremacists.

Two things. First, Blitzchung’s statement was “Free Hong Kong, the revolution of our times!” This is specifically calling for secession and revolution, both of which are the most political of acts.

You really like ascribing opinions to people who disagree with you so you can shout at them, don’t you?

Where? I didn’t see them say that anywhere. What I did see is them state, specifically, that NO political speech is allowed on their stream. If you don’t believe me, feel free to go on stream and shout “reclaim Hong Kong, the treason of our times!” and see what happens.

Actually, the conservative opinion is that they should be able to use any channel for their speech without punishment, just as people are arguing for Blitzchung. Or haven’t you paid attention to the controversy over Twitter over the last few years?

This isn’t about the games, it’s about the entertainment stream, and people believing that said stream should allow political speech (calling for a revolution and secession is political, regardless of context) without punishment as long as it’s speech they believe in. This is literally the same argument conservatives…

No, Blitzchung was calling for secession and revolution on Blizzard’s time, on their stream, not on his own time, on his own stream. If he had been on his own stream, nobody would have given a shit, including both Blizzard and yourself.

That depends on how you “frost” it, really. Done right, you have yourself a perfectly good foodstuff masquerading as a different foodstuff, nothing wasted.

While this is true, that was also the punishment laid out in the contract that Blitzchung not only signed, but was aware of when he made his decision. And, on review, Blizzard acknowledged that the punishment was extreme, amended it, and set the new punishment as the standard. Instead of being angry at Blizzard for…

Not really, because that immediately tacks them to a particular stance, and no company can afford to be locked down to a stance by somebody else. They need to express their stance themselves. Stopping people from speaking for them isn’t making that stance, letting people say specific things for them is.